|
Post by saimoon1 on May 18, 2015 18:22:55 GMT
In A Tale of Two Cities, the scenes that are created when everything breaks lose on the Bastille prison are horrifying. The guards of the prison are beheaded and stuck on pikes. This got me wondering if they are going too far. I understand that the aristocrats oppressed the protesters take things to a whole new horrifying level, when they are trying to stop the oppression of the rich. What difference does it make from the poor to the rich then?
How far should protesters go in order to attain their cause?
|
|
|
Post by jooyoungparkyesbaby on May 20, 2015 0:53:33 GMT
The furthest is non-violence. They should not engage in violence. Violence must not be the key to every problem that the protesters fight for.
|
|
|
Post by lins on May 20, 2015 0:55:22 GMT
The people in the French Revolution described by the story is radicals I believe. They were ready to kill anyone who opposed to them, often in cruel and violent manner. As Saimoon said, there will be no difference between the poor and the aristocrats, in this manner. Both of them try to oppress each other, kill each other and not willing to give up anything. Poor people killing everyone and being radical like the aristocrats will just bring more violence and war. That would just make endless wars.
The protestors shouldn't be killing all the aristocrats, I believe. Some aristocrats is nice, like how there are some nice poor people and bad poor people. The people overthrowing should be able to distinguish between greedy aristocrats and nice ones so that they don't kill the innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by estherchoi on May 20, 2015 0:55:38 GMT
I understand that the commoners are mad about lack of food and stuff, but I don't think they used the right way to express their feelings. The guards of the prison were not actually the people who didn't give food; it was actually the government people. The guards are actually innocent. They work to get paid and the next day they are killed just because the commoners are mad at the aristocrats.
|
|
|
Post by sanhakim95 on May 20, 2015 0:56:10 GMT
I think protesters need to set clear objective that they want to achieve. If protesters have obvious objectives and once accomplish it, they need to stop and not to go too far. Because of protester's excessive behaviors, other innocent people can possibly be victims.
|
|
|
Post by nerdira on May 20, 2015 0:56:21 GMT
I do believe that violence isn't the answer, but sometimes protesting peacefully doesn't grab the attention of the people in positions of power, so the marginalized have to resort to violent actions to get attention for their cause. It's not something that justifies their actions, however I'd understand if someone resorted to violent actions to achieve a certain goal.
|
|
|
Post by dhiya on May 20, 2015 0:58:21 GMT
They should stand up for what they believe in and go all they way. But they should set limit to themselves, because everything has limits, and they should think of the consequences of the actions. When they killed the guards, it sets bad example, and it would lead to more wars and problem isn't solved
|
|
jimim
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by jimim on May 20, 2015 0:59:24 GMT
I think they went too far because there was too much violence. Violence does not solve everything and it just harms other people. So I think people should have solved in non violence ways.
|
|
|
Post by jmoon234 on May 20, 2015 0:59:54 GMT
Killing might be a effective way to quiet people, but it is something that also has a risk. People knowing that they are killing others would think that this is wrong. Everyone is the same, but people like the aristocrats are just killing people to show fear and show that they are superior. People are Hollis to think that they have the rights to kill otherpeople. This might have been something natural for animals and beasts, but people could have found better ways to manage themselves.
|
|
|
Post by anyuchen on May 20, 2015 1:03:38 GMT
I think if one protester wnat to get success in their life. They have a lond way to walk aroung. I think this situation happened a lot in bussiness and political area. For example, many famous political figure work hard for their whole life and finally they just want to purchaes the position of president. ONly one of them could get what they want. For those people , that's really a long way.
|
|
|
Post by christian1002 on May 20, 2015 1:12:41 GMT
They were not going too far from my perspective. The reason I say this is that sometimes they cannot just act all peacefully in order to make people in high positions care. Sometimes non_volence ways do not solve anything.
|
|
|
Post by christian1002 on May 20, 2015 1:13:29 GMT
They were not going too far from my perspective. The reason I say this is that sometimes they cannot just act all peacefully in order to make people in high positions care. Sometimes non_volence ways do not solve anything.
|
|
woojong
Junior Member
Come to the darkside...we have cookies 8D
Posts: 85
|
Post by woojong on May 22, 2015 22:44:23 GMT
I think the protesters should be radical, because sometimes a harsh action should be taken in order to achieve some things. For example, the French revolution included executing many aristocrats before changing the government.
|
|
|
Post by danielkim on May 28, 2015 0:39:27 GMT
I would say that these were done by French radicals so it is not appropriate to assume that all French populace were like that at the revolution. I think the protesters should have planned carefully how to act during the revolution. They should have planned how they will overthrow the government, who should they kill, and what they should do after the revolution. The keyword is: try to avoid further conflict.
|
|
|
Post by James on May 28, 2015 23:19:50 GMT
people should go far enough to be engaged in violence. I think that is the only way to make an actual impact. Government doesn't really take action unless people are engaged in violence
|
|